and submitted December 21, 2017
County Circuit Court 15CR52306; Maurice K. Merten, Judge.
Krohn, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for
appellant. Also on the briefs was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief
Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Offce of Public Defense
M. Wilsey, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for
respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum,
Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.
Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Garrett, Judge, and Powers,
Summary: Defendant seeks reversal of a judgment fending that
she violated a special condition of her probation by failing
"to participate in an evaluation with Quality Research
Associates as directed and/or follow the recommendation of
the evaluator." Defendant contends that she complied
with the special condition because she reported to the
evaluation. In contrast, the state argues that, to comply
with the special condition, defendant was required to
complete the evaluation. Held: The trial court did
not err in ruling that defendant violated the special
condition of her probation.
Or. 315] ORTEGA, P. J.
seeks reversal of a judgment finding that she violated a
special condition of her probation by failing "to
participate in an evaluation with Quality Research Associates
as directed and/or follow the recommendation of the
evaluator." Defendant contends that she complied with
the special condition because she reported to the evaluation.
In contrast, the state argues that, to comply with the
special condition, defendant was required to complete the
evaluation. We conclude that the trial court did not err in
ruling that defendant violated the special condition of her
probation and, accordingly, we affirm.
underlying criminal case, on December 24, 2015, defendant
pleaded guilty to the charge of violating a stalking
protective order, ORS 163.750(2)(a), and the trial court
sentenced her to 60 months of probation and 45 days in jail
as a condition of her probation. The court imposed a special
probation condition that defendant
"[r]eport in person no later than 2:00 p.m. by 1/7/16 to
Quality Research Associates (QRA) to be evaluated [.]
Defendant shall comply, at [her] expense, with all
evaluations, treatment and education programs designated by
QRA or by any other agency to which defendant is referred by
QRA or by the Court."
reported to QRA on April 19, more than three months after the
time specified in condition, and began an evaluation. The
evaluator stated that during the evaluation, defendant
"was becoming more and more erratic and hostile,"
and that even after the evaluator made several attempts to
deescalate the situation, defendant would not calm down.
Unable to complete the evaluation, the evaluator ended the
interview because of defendant's "behavior and lack
of cooperation [during] the interview."
evaluator filed a notice of noncompliance with the court, and
the state filed an order to show cause requiring defendant to
explain why her probation should not be revoked based on her
failure to comply with the special condition. Defendant
testified that the first evaluation was [293 Or. 316]
"extremely upsetting" and that she was dealing with
personal and family issues at that time. The court found that
the allegations in the state's motion were proven,
ordered the continuation of defendant's probation, and
also ordered that defendant serve 30 days in jail as an
additional probation condition. Defendant served the 30 days.
appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in
finding that she violated the special probation condition
that she be evaluated by QRA. She contends that she was only
required to "report for an evaluation" and comply
with any programs designated by the evaluator, and because
she reported, there was no violation. She further argues
that, regardless of the first evaluation, she still satisfied
the special condition of probation by July 14 because she
returned to QRA so that the evaluator could complete the
evaluation and nothing in the record indicates that the
evaluation was not completed successfully. The state first
responds that this appeal should be dismissed as moot.
Alternatively, the state argues that the trial court